Tag: Ukraine

Posted on

Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 337.  Gobble, gobble, gobble!  I’m Thomas-

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         -that’s Andrew.  How’re ya doing?

Andrew:         Gobble gobble to you, Thomas!  Happy Thanksgiving, we’re gonna get this episode out a little bit early for listeners so that if you have a long commute on Thursday out to visit your family you’ll have something to keep you company and maybe we’ll have some guidelines for how to have a productive conversation with your Republican family over Thanksgiving.  I think that’s kind of our goal for this episode, right?

Thomas:         Yeah, I think we’re gonna touch on the controversial stuff, like for example, mashed potatoes: skins in or out?  I think there’s no more contentious – I mean, there’s impeachment all that crap, but-

Andrew:         Yeah, but obviously that’s a skins out.

Thomas:         Oh thank god!

Andrew:         You’ve gotta use a-

Thomas:         Oh thank god, okay, finally!  We don’t have to have a big public fight, Andrew and I agree on the correct opinion.  Look, I’m not throwing mashed potatoes with skins out of bed, [Laughs]

Andrew:         No, that’s right! 

Thomas:         I mean I’ll eat them, but…

Continue reading “Transcript of OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment”
Posted on

OA337: How to Talk to Your (Republican) Family About Impeachment

Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We’re happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest “trial balloon” defense of Trump’s conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don’t know what “CrowdStrike” and “Chalupa” mean, you won’t want to miss this one!

We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment — bribery — and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers.

After that lengthy breakdown, it’s time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What’s going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out!

Then, as always, it’s time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won’t move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you?

Appearances

Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
  2. We broke down Amb. Sondland’s testimony in Episode 335. But don’t just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery.
  3. We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire’s testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower’s complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump’s lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump’s April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill’s opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy’s appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew!
  4. In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998).

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

Announcements

[Show Intro]

New Show Intro

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 326.  I’m your host Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez, your legal expert and Andrew how are you doing?  And I just remembered we all just heard a brand new intro that was so funny, I don’t even.  I was laughing the whole time and I don’t even remember what the new quotes were!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         In this timeline I haven’t done it yet, but they were great, weren’t they? [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan”
Posted on

OA326: When the SCIF Hit the Fan

Today’s episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America’s Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

We begin with a brief overview of the “due process” argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment.

From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump’s rights of due process. Along the way, we’ll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal — a criminal big deal — that Gaetz and others violated it.

Then, it’s time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor’s testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.)

After all that, it’s time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn’t work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer!

Upcoming Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today!
  2. This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI.
  3. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA 318 – Quid Pro Quo Burger

Listen to the episode & read the show notes

Topics of Discussion

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 318.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         [Chuckles] I am doing fantastic, Thomas!  I think I said earlier on Twitter, I’ve had some good days in my life, you know?  The birth of my child, my honeymoon, the trip we took to Australia … today is way up there with those days!  [Laughs]  How are you doing?

Thomas:         Because we are finally going to be doing the eminent domain deep dive!

Andrew:         That’s right!

Thomas:         Yes!

Andrew:         Oh, and I’ve got a long segment on baseball law!  No.  [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA 318 – Quid Pro Quo Burger”
Posted on

OA318: Quid Pro Quo Burger

Hooooo boy! Today’s episode breaks down the tipping point that finally got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry: the now-disclosed whistleblower complaint that lays out exactly how Donald Trump abused our foreign policy to pressure a foreign leader to aid him in his 2020 re-election campaign. It’s every bit as bad as it looks, and we walk you through exactly what it means.

Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

Here’s the topline: Acting DNI Maguire changed his story as to why he withheld the whistleblower complaint to a completely bogus claim of executive privilege. We’ll tell you why that won’t hold up. We’ll also answer:

  • What’s a TELCON, and do we have reasons to believe that the “transcript” of the President’s July 25 conversation with Ukranian President Zelenskyy was “Bill Barr”ed?
  • Are we at PEAK YODEL MOUNTAIN?
  • Did the Republicans really email their stupid talking points to Nancy Pelosi? And if so, how do we spot a hack? (Hint: he — and they’re pretty much all ‘he’s — will have an “R” after his name.)
  • What did we learn from Maguire’s testimony today, and how incriminating was it? (Very.)
  • What does the complaint say and how bad is it?
  • And finally — what are the FIVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Andrew thinks will be brought against this President?

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE, this time a dreaded real property question that Thomas feels oddly confident about his answer. Do you share his optimism? Let us know!

Upcoming Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
  2. Remember that the operative statute requiring Maguire to have turned over the whistleblower complaint is 50 U.S.C. § 3033, and particularly subsection (k)(5).
  3. Here’s the New York Times reporting that Trump mentioned Giuliani way back in his first call to Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019.
  4. Extortion is 18 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2); treason is 18 U.S.C. § 2381, and neither are a good fit here.
  5. What laws are a good fit? Well, how about (a) illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, 52 U.S.C. § 30121; (b) bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; (c) obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and much more??
  6. Finally, remember that we first discussed illegal campaign contributions back in Episode 116.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!




Download Link